What's new

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is an aggregating digest, it includes teacher comments on graded work, and it spans both backward-looking (overdue) and forward-looking (due next) windows — useful framing for interpreting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter guidance, then triggering examples. No filler and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a useful level by naming the four result categories and the inclusion of teacher comments. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, but for a read-only digest this is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter including defaults. The description restates the same semantics ('Pass course_ids to limit it, since_days for how far back, days_ahead for how far ahead') without adding format details, valid ranges, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('one catch up digest for every class') and enumerates the four content categories (announcements, newly graded work with teacher comments, overdue work, due next). The word 'digest' plus the enumeration clearly distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings like get_announcements or get_missing_assignments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete triggering user utterances ('What's new since yesterday?', 'What changed in my classes?'), which is strong positive guidance. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a narrower sibling tool (e.g. get_announcements for announcements only), so the routing boundary is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.